Another IDIOT Democrat..Sen. Tammy Baldwin: 1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Individuals

[Vigilante]

Where do they get these crazies from that have never read the Constitution?

Media Trackers ^ | 07-06-2015
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals. On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individual’s do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.

 

[DarkFury]

She must have missed the memo from SCOTUS that it DOES.

 

[JoeB131]

I actually had to check to make sure that she didn't say what was claimed.

So here is the supposedly offending statement.

"“Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.” -

She's absolutely right.

Satanists can't break the murder laws and perform human sacrifices.

Rastafarians can't break the drug laws and smoke a lot of pot.

Christian Pharmacists can't refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

If the performance of your job would require you to violate your religious beliefs, you already have a remedy. You can quit and find another job.

 

[martybegan]

I actually had to check to make sure that she didn't say what was claimed.

So here is the supposedly offending statement.

"“Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.” -

She's absolutely right.

Satanists can't break the murder laws and perform human sacrifices.

Rastafarians can't break the drug laws and smoke a lot of pot.

Christian Pharmacists can't refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

If the performance of your job would require you to violate your religious beliefs, you already have a remedy. You can quit and find another job.

1. Murder is a crime in of itself, and a crime 99.99999% of the population agrees is a crime.
2. Bad law to reference, pot laws are going the way of the Dodo.
3. They should be able to as long as there are other outlets for people to get Birth Control and they advertise that they don't provide it.

That's not a remedy, and is only valid for necessary or time sensitive occupations or services. For things that don't meet those requirements, a person's moral and religious convictions should hold sway.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Murder is a crime in of itself, and a crime 99.99999% of the population agrees is a crime.
.

Well, what about the .000001% who don't think it's a crime? What if the person who is being sacrificed signed a bunch of releases saying she truly wanted to be sacrificed to Satan? would it be okay then?

2. Bad law to reference, pot laws are going the way of the Dodo.

Maybe, but the point is, until they do, you can't claim a religious exemption to break the law.

3. They should be able to as long as there are other outlets for people to get Birth Control and they advertise that they don't provide it.

And while they are at it, they should have their licenses from the state revoked, and all access to utilities, public service, police and fire protection and other nasty "gummit" to be revoked. seems to me you can't insist on having government protect YOUR interest and not the other persons.

That's not a remedy, and is only valid for necessary or time sensitive occupations or services. For things that don't meet those requirements, a person's moral and religious convictions should hold sway.

Or not. Frankly, i'm getting a little bored with you guys dressing up your bigotry in vestments and calling it "religion'.

 

[martybegan]

1. Murder is a crime in of itself, and a crime 99.99999% of the population agrees is a crime.
.

Well, what about the .000001% who don't think it's a crime? What if the person who is being sacrificed signed a bunch of releases saying she truly wanted to be sacrificed to Satan? would it be okay then?

2. Bad law to reference, pot laws are going the way of the Dodo.

Maybe, but the point is, until they do, you can't claim a religious exemption to break the law.

3. They should be able to as long as there are other outlets for people to get Birth Control and they advertise that they don't provide it.

And while they are at it, they should have their licenses from the state revoked, and all access to utilities, public service, police and fire protection and other nasty "gummit" to be revoked. seems to me you can't insist on having government protect YOUR interest and not the other persons.

That's not a remedy, and is only valid for necessary or time sensitive occupations or services. For things that don't meet those requirements, a person's moral and religious convictions should hold sway.

Or not. Frankly, i'm getting a little bored with you guys dressing up your bigotry in vestments and calling it "religion'.

The .0000001% has to submit to the 99.999999 percent, in that case their desire is moot.

And your "all or nothing" response indicates you have nothing but bile and vitriol as your reasons for wanting to use government to do your dirty work.

Government should protect all our interests, but having your feelings hurt is not a reason to ruin someone, unless of course you get off your ass, create an actual boycott, and force them to either submit or go away.

 

[martybegan]

1. Murder is a crime in of itself, and a crime 99.99999% of the population agrees is a crime.
.

Well, what about the .000001% who don't think it's a crime? What if the person who is being sacrificed signed a bunch of releases saying she truly wanted to be sacrificed to Satan? would it be okay then?

2. Bad law to reference, pot laws are going the way of the Dodo.

Maybe, but the point is, until they do, you can't claim a religious exemption to break the law.

3. They should be able to as long as there are other outlets for people to get Birth Control and they advertise that they don't provide it.

And while they are at it, they should have their licenses from the state revoked, and all access to utilities, public service, police and fire protection and other nasty "gummit" to be revoked. seems to me you can't insist on having government protect YOUR interest and not the other persons.

That's not a remedy, and is only valid for necessary or time sensitive occupations or services. For things that don't meet those requirements, a person's moral and religious convictions should hold sway.

Or not. Frankly, i'm getting a little bored with you guys dressing up your bigotry in vestments and calling it "religion'.

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She must have missed the memo from SCOTUS that it DOES.

Depends on who you ask.

Consider this opinion (in the majority) written by Justice Scalia:

"Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further.

They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons.

They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires).

As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning."

Need an explanation?

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

We don't allow citizens exemptions from paying taxes by claiming the use of the taxes, such as for war, requires them to participate in an activity they believe violates their religious beliefs.

If you were right, such a refusal of exemption would not be constitutional.

 

[JoeB131]

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

Getting rid of homophobia is a compelling government interest.
Done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where do they get these crazies from that have never read the Constitution?

Media Trackers ^ | 07-06-2015
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals. On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individual’s do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.

What is it about munching carpet that makes dykes stupid? The first lesbo in the Senate distinguishes herself by her stupidity. Every right in the bill of rights is an individual right.

 

[martybegan]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

We don't allow citizens exemptions from paying taxes by claiming the use of the taxes, such as for war, requires them to participate in an activity they believe violates their religious beliefs.

If you were right, such a refusal of exemption would not be constitutional.

Refusing to pay taxes because of religion is an actual harm, both to the government, and everyone else who pays taxes. There is compelling government interest here.

It still doesn't mean hurt feelings = actual harm.

 

[martybegan]

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

Getting rid of homophobia is a compelling government interest.
Done.

Thought Crime. Figures that comes from you.

 

[Vigilante]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

We don't allow citizens exemptions from paying taxes by claiming the use of the taxes, such as for war, requires them to participate in an activity they believe violates their religious beliefs.

If you were right, such a refusal of exemption would not be constitutional.

Refusing to pay taxes because of religion is an actual harm, both to the government, and everyone else who pays taxes. There is compelling government interest here.

It still doesn't mean hurt feelings = actual harm.

ROE is the law, just as religions NOT paying taxes is the law.... I'll trade taxes for NO ABORTION...will that be OK?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

We don't allow citizens exemptions from paying taxes by claiming the use of the taxes, such as for war, requires them to participate in an activity they believe violates their religious beliefs.

If you were right, such a refusal of exemption would not be constitutional.

Refusing to pay taxes because of religion is an actual harm, both to the government, and everyone else who pays taxes. There is compelling government interest here.

It still doesn't mean hurt feelings = actual harm.

The inability to patronize a business because you are gay is outright discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

We don't allow citizens exemptions from paying taxes by claiming the use of the taxes, such as for war, requires them to participate in an activity they believe violates their religious beliefs.

If you were right, such a refusal of exemption would not be constitutional.

Refusing to pay taxes because of religion is an actual harm, both to the government, and everyone else who pays taxes. There is compelling government interest here.

It still doesn't mean hurt feelings = actual harm.

What's the 'actual harm' to a baker not being allowed to discriminate against people he doesn't like?

 

[Vigilante]

Again, lapsed Catholic here at best. I don't care about my views of the Religious aspect, What I care about is protecting other's views, even if I disagree with them. It's a concept you can't seem to grasp. To you we all have to be the same little snowflakes, just like you are.

One more time, you've got a remedy.

Your remedy is not be in a business where you will be forced to do things that violate your beliefs.

That isn't a remedy, and should only be applied when there is a compelling government interest, or the sales are so generic that any connection to the event or use is non material.

We don't allow citizens exemptions from paying taxes by claiming the use of the taxes, such as for war, requires them to participate in an activity they believe violates their religious beliefs.

If you were right, such a refusal of exemption would not be constitutional.

Refusing to pay taxes because of religion is an actual harm, both to the government, and everyone else who pays taxes. There is compelling government interest here.

It still doesn't mean hurt feelings = actual harm.

What's the 'actual harm' to a baker not being allowed to discriminate against people he doesn't like?

Still trying to disconnect from the Constitution on Religion, right atheist!